Ultimately, one can break campaign finance laws regardless of intent. The argument that Trump simply did this to keep it from his spouse is immaterial if it also helped him hide an embarrassing story from the public during a very close public election.

It's my understanding that in this situation the intent is critical. Cohen making payments to protect Trump the person is not illegal, making payments to protect the Trump campaign is illegal. John Edwards faced a similar situation and escaped by exactly this argument. Also matters if the money came from Trump or not (or if Trump paid himself back from other sources)...

Does make you wonder why he waited until October 2016 to pay her off when she first started mentioning it in 2011... hmm.

So what evidence is there that the intent was to protect the Trump campaign? Currently we know of Cohen's testimony to that effect, but didn't Cohen also tape a lot of conversations? There may well be a "smoking gun" independent of his word alone. There is much more to come out in the Cohen department.

But honestly, I think it's more that Trump has lived his entire life as a rich, crooked shyster. He has no morals and has never had to honestly answer for anything he has ever done, because he has always been able to weasel his way out of stuff. He doesn't know what being held accountable looks like. I think he has a blind spot about committing crimes because he's been doing it all his life and it hasn't hurt him at all. Why would he worry about having to be held accountable as president? We have all seen that Trump seemed to believe being president was essentially like being the CEO and majority shareholder of the "company" of the United States. He fully expected to be able to do anything he damn well pleased. Just like he always has, except now he gets to stick his hands even bigger coffers and negotiate bribes on an even bigger scale. The fact that he has people scrutinizing his actions as president, and the actions of other people acting on his behalf, seems to have come as a complete shock to him.

This.

What's scary is that he might still be right that he can weasel his way out of anything.

I just went on a forum I haven't spent much time on in the last couple years to see how their discussion is going. There are some hardcore Trump supporters on there and none of this makes any difference to any of them.

Various posts in the last couple days - Mueller should be disbarred, fire Sessions, but Obama, but Hillary, but Bill, build the wall, economy is great, damn liberals, etc. etc.

I don't have much hope of anything.

I understand the concerns here, but keep in mind that these people ultimately don't matter. The law matters, as long as we have a Justice Department to enforce it. That minority that will believe he is innocent in the face of overwhelming evidence can continue to believe it. They are not the ones who matter.

I was listening to Politico podcast with some sort of 'expert' (did not catch credentials) who said that legally speaking, as long as Trump cannot be contradicted in claiming that he did not know that campaign finance law was violated when he instructed Cohen to make payments, he is not for liable consequences of said payments.

I have no idea if that is correct, or not, but it would be the first time I've heard that ignorance of the law is a defense. Interesting.

Other than that, it's a question of whether or not Trump paid the hush money to benefit his campaign or benefit his marriage and other personal relationships. This is a question that probably can't be answered beyond a reasonable doubt, and will prevent any risk of conviction for campaign finance violations provided no campaign money was used to pay the hush money.

See above, we don't have to speculate, the evidence trail is very clear that the payments were secondary to the election, which make them illegal campaign contributions, i.e. what Cohen pled to in addition to his tax charges.

You'll have to point that out. Him making the payment after the Billy Bush tapes doesn't really push it one way or the other. Maybe they were concerned about the cumulative impact of the Bush tape and the Stormy Daniels issue on the campaign, or maybe they were concerned about the cumulative impact on his marriage and/or relationship with his kids.

There may be a smoking gun out there in the form of an email, but I suspect somebody that has been in as much litigation as Trump doesn't engage in business like that over email.

Read the indictment (which Cohen has pled guilty to) for particulars. Count VII specifically charges Cohen with allowing 'Corporation 1' (almost certainly the Trump Organization) with making illegal campaign contributions. Count VIII mentions Trump Campaign Executives that worked with Cohen to pay off Persons 1 & 2 (presumably Daniels and McDougal). The actions of Cohen were to help 'Candidate [Trump]'.

What is notable throughout is the number of times executives of the Trump Organization, the campaign committee and America Media Inc are mentioned throughout. This isn't one laywer working with a single client to hide his client's trysts from his spouse. It was a (poorly) coordinated effort involving no less than 7 named executives from three corporations.

Ultimately, one can break campaign finance laws regardless of intent. The argument that Trump simply did this to keep it from his spouse is immaterial if it also helped him hide an embarrassing story from the public during a very close public election.

This is incorrect. Certainly you can break a campaign finance law without intending to break it, but mens rea is still one of the elements of the crime. In this case, Trump had to make the payment for the purpose of benefiting his campaign. That's a difficult hurdle to get over when there is an obvious alternative reason to make the payment.

There may be a smoking gun that they haven't revealed since Cohen pled guilty. Really doesn't make sense that he would do that for such a difficult to prove crime unless the FBI has a smoking gun, unless he is being assured that pleading on that will result in them not charging him for more serious crimes they can get him on, which is not part of any official agreement.

IF there's no smoking gun, in the event they try to prosecute Trump after he is president, it will be Cohen's word against Trump's. Neither particularly credible, but the prosecuting benefiting from Cohen not having an official plea deal but also going up against a beyond reasonable doubt standard.

Can you imagine how many people for both white collar and any other type crime would use the would use the "gee I didn't know it was illegal" defense if it was permissible? Nobody would get convicted. So I don't think so. See: Judge Judy.

It is pretty obvious Trump doesn't give a crap about protecting Melania's feelings even if she hadn't known about this particular incident. And the timing and the way he tried to cover it up looks bad for him as well (why not do the payout in 2011 instead of 2016 right before the election). Nothing really supports Trump's defense.

You'll have to point that out. Him making the payment after the Billy Bush tapes doesn't really push it one way or the other.

I think I speak for most of the world here when I say I'm flabbergasted that you would try to defend this sort of behavior.

If the FBI has the evidence that it says it has, then Trump committed multiple felonies for the purpose of securing the election. He literally broke federal law in order to become the chief law enforcement officer of the country. He violated his oath of office in order to take the oath of office. I'm having a hard time imaging a more clear cut case for impeachment.

Well that's not true, I can imagine that he broke the law to become President at the behest of a hostile foreign power, like Russia. That's looking more and more likely, and I guess that would be an even more severe violation.

I'm not defending anything. I'm just pointing out that the elements of the crime and the fact that it's going to be difficult to prove mens rea on intending to benefit the campaign versus his personal life the beyond a reasonable doubt without anything in writing from Trump.

And while it would be nice if we held our politicians to higher standards, I think we already lost that fight with Clinton. And on the campaign finance violation, I don't think Obama's campaign finance violations were an impeachable offense and if it is actually proven that Trump's payments were for the campaign, I don't think they're impeachable offenses either. I generally view campaign finance law as being aimed at influence buying/peddling. I don't think payments to former mistresses are really relevant (since we have more or less decided that we don't care about marriage related infidelities of our politicians).

Now if the money used to pay were partially embezzled from his business partners, I would hope that would be impeachable.

For someone who's not defending anything, you're sure using a lot of whataboutism in your defense of Trump.

Not sure you understand what whataboutism is. I'm not pointing to something unrelated to defend anybody's actions. I'm pointing out to similar situations as a matter of precedent. Impeachment is a political remedy, so it's not exactly guided by precedent, but it's still instructive. For better or worse, most people do not want to impeach presidents for sexual infidelity (or at least not when the president is in their party), even if there are other crimes associated with the cover up.

"Republicans Find Midterm Message: Vote GOP, or Democrats Impeach Trump" (with big side by side photos of Pelosi, and Trump)

Some of the smaller articles and opinion pieces even worse (hillary, Obama, fill in the blank)

LOL! In their disgusting political circle jerk about Mollie Tibbets' death, I'm sure they must have mentioned that the immigrant who killed her was employed by a prominent Republican farmer and political figure:

MONTEZUMA, Iowa — The Latest on an arrest and charges in the death of Iowa college student Mollie Tibbetts (all times local):9:15 p.m.The immigrant from Mexico charged in the kidnapping and murder of an Iowa college student worked at a dairy farm owned by the family of a prominent state Republican leader.Yarrabee Farms said in a statement that Cristhian Bahena Rivera had worked at its farms for the last four years and was an employee in good standing. The company said it was shocked to hear that Rivera had been charged in the death of 20-year-old Mollie Tibbetts.Spokesman Dane Lang said Tuesday night that Yarrabee Farms is a "small family farm" owned by him and his father, Craig Lang, who has long been a prominent Iowa farmer and political figure.Craig Lang previously served as president of the Iowa Farm Bureau and president of the Iowa Board of Regents, which governs the state's public universities. In June, he lost a close GOP primary in the race for state agriculture secretary.Rivera was charged Tuesday with first-degree murder in Tibbetts' death.

Can you imagine how many people for both white collar and any other type crime would use the would use the "gee I didn't know it was illegal" defense if it was permissible? Nobody would get convicted. So I don't think so. See: Judge Judy.

This was pretty much what I was getting at. Ignorance of the law is not a suitable defense, and the fact that an action involving a presidential candidate during a campaign and a media company and a private corporation to suppress information is by its very nature beneficial to the campaign.

And on the campaign finance violation, I don't think Obama's campaign finance violations were an impeachable offense and if it is actually proven that Trump's payments were for the campaign, I don't think they're impeachable offenses either.

I don't think payments to former mistresses are really relevant (since we have more or less decided that we don't care about marriage related infidelities of our politicians).

Straw man. (The argument isn't that paying Trump's former mistresses is relevant, but that his lying while doing so as an attempt to keep the public from knowing what was going on while running for office is.)

Say what you will about Sarah Huck-Sanders, she is good at her job. She is really good at lying.

Today she had a press briefing and repeatedly said "the president has done nothing wrong" by which she presumably means it is not "wrong" to cheat on your wife with a porn star or a playboy bunny, not "wrong" to arrange to pay those women hush money, and not "wrong" to violate campaign finance law to do it. Or maybe she just meant some of those things, instead of all of them. Hard to tell.

She said Cohen's plea "doesn't implicate the president in anything" but the plea specifically says the president directed Cohen to commit two different felonies, for which Cohen is going to jail. Maybe she doesn't understand what "implicate" means? Hey Sarah, it means he's been accused of a crime.

When asked if the President lied to the American people when he said he didn't know these women, never paid them, didn't know about the payments, or paid them but did so legally, she said he had never lied to anyone and "that's a ridiculous question." Hmmm, maybe she thought he was only lying to reporters or investigators, and so wasn't lying "to the American people" when he so obviously lied about all of these things. I'm trying to give her the benefit of the doubt here.

Did an equal number of people support Nixon during his impeachment, or was it lower?

There is a great podcast called "Slow Burn" being put out by Slate.com. Despite the acknowledged liberal bias of Slate, I've found Slow Burn to be a remarkably balanced narration of Watergate. Based on a listen, I have to say that Nixon's support among a base of hard-core Republican supporters was firm right up until the end.

The summer of 1973 introduced many of the facts into the public sphere that were ultimately what drove him from office. But it was internal polling on the upcoming midterms that caused GOP Senators to approach Nixon in August 1974 and tell him to scram.

Like Trump, Nixon won the Presidency with a coalition that included many working class (white) voters who were disillusioned by the direction the Democratic party seemed to be heading. Nixon was able to hold this coalition together and win the 1972 election overwhelmingly, with a Reagan-esque electoral vote total. His popularity wasn't sufficient to dribble down to individual Congressional races.

And on the campaign finance violation, I don't think Obama's campaign finance violations were an impeachable offense and if it is actually proven that Trump's payments were for the campaign, I don't think they're impeachable offenses either.

Whataboutism - counteraccusation. (Obama did it too.)

If this is your standard, then whataboutism is a good thing when it comes to criminal justice issues. It's not whataboutism to point out that blacks in a particular jurisdiction get a harsher sentence for a particular crime than whites convicted of the same crime. Or if it is, it's a good thing. Whataboutism would be pointing out Hillary Clinton's whitewater issues. Pointing to another president who got caught up with basically the exact same issues (except with perjury and obstruction of justice instead of campaign finance issues) and a president who got caught up in campaign finance issues (but without the extra marital issues) seems to be the closest existing precedent.

I generally view campaign finance law as being aimed at influence buying/peddling.

Moving the goalposts. (Maybe we should redefine what campaign finance law is about.)

I'm not moving the goal posts. I'm just pointing out why I don't think Obama should have been impeached for his campaign finance violations and why I think most people don't think he should be impeached. And why applying that standard would not deem Trump's alleged violations an impeachable offense. I don't think the reason Obama wasn't being impeached was that people were being partisan. They just didn't (reasonably in my opinion) think that the campaign finance violations, even if bad, were an impeachable offense. Somewhat off topic but I thought worth mentioning since there are some campaign finance violations that I (and I think most people) would consider impeachable offenses.

I don't think payments to former mistresses are really relevant (since we have more or less decided that we don't care about marriage related infidelities of our politicians).

Straw man. (The argument isn't that paying Trump's former mistresses is relevant, but that his lying while doing so as an attempt to keep the public from knowing what was going on while running for office is.)

This is basically the same argument over Clinton except during office instead of during the campaign. And except it was perjuring himself to defend against a sexual harassment claim rather than avoid an affair being made public.

Now if the money used to pay were partially embezzled from his business partners, I would hope that would be impeachable.

Red Herring. (Completely unrelated tangent to the conversation.)

It's not a red herring. Depending on who owns the organization that paid the hush money, it's a potentially impeachable offense. And probably the only potential impeachable offense related to the hush money. Even if it's unrelated to his actions as president, I would hope that stealing from business partners would be deemed an impeachable offense.

According to what I read, Obama's 2008 campaign had a fine of 375K it was due to incomplete or missing paperwork, erroneous contribution dates on some campaign reports, and late in returning some contributions that exceeded the legal limit. It looks bad, but they were considered by the Federal commission to be relatively minor issues.

Trump is implicated in bribery, suppressing information to influence an election, bank and tax fraud. And I believe there is enough evidence to show he and his team solicited information from Russia in an attempt to influence the election, another federal crime.

Other than they were both campaign finance violations, saying that Obama's traffic ticket-like violation is unimpeachable, than so should Trump's violations be unimpeachable, doesn't make logical sense. Is that really what you are arguing?

In the same way a president lying about having sex with an intern while in office, while a president lying about being under the influence of a foreign power, while both lies, are not equivalent. I hope you are not suggesting they are.

And if we want to be completely impartial, since the Republicans saw fit to impeach Clinton for lying under oath, for something that was morally distasteful and reprehensible but not illegal, at the very least we should apply the same rule to Trump, correct? and if not, why not?

An impeacha blue offense is basically whatever a majority of elected House members says it is. Most legal schola RSM agree it does not even need to be a criminal act if it involves dereliction of duty.

According to what I read, Obama's 2008 campaign had a fine of 375K it was due to incomplete or missing paperwork, erroneous contribution dates on some campaign reports, and late in returning some contributions that exceeded the legal limit. It looks bad, but they were considered by the Federal commission to be relatively minor issues.

Trump is implicated in bribery, suppressing information to influence an election, bank and tax fraud. And I believe there is enough evidence to show he and his team solicited information from Russia in an attempt to influence the election, another federal crime.

Other than they were both campaign finance violations, saying that Obama's traffic ticket-like violation is unimpeachable, than so should Trump's violations be unimpeachable, doesn't make logical sense. Is that really what you are arguing?

In the same way a president lying about having sex with an intern while in office, while a president lying about being under the influence of a foreign power, while both lies, are not equivalent. I hope you are not suggesting they are.

And if we want to be completely impartial, since the Republicans saw fit to impeach Clinton for lying under oath, for something that was morally distasteful and reprehensible but not illegal, at the very least we should apply the same rule to Trump, correct? and if not, why not?

You are talking about a lot of supposition. I was talking specifically about Cohen's payment of hush money. Provided Trump didn't embezzle money from his partners to do so, and assuming it was actually a campaign expenditure and not a personal expense (in which case there was no violation at all), the violation itself was basically a record keeping/reporting violation. Different because it was regarding an affair, but also different because it was a much smaller amount.

Have you noticed that the Manafort jury didn't come back with a decision yet? The fact that this was not a slam dunk case makes me think we've already lost the country. I fear there is a solitary Trump supporter on the jury who will never consent to convicting Paul Manafort because they think they think the investigation itself is unconstitutional or something, regardless of the evidence. If you believe it's a witch hunt, then even obvious criminals get off?

Oh man did I call it or what? Turns out a lone die-hard trump supporter is the reason Manafort's trial was hung on some counts.

From a different article about it: "A political allegiance to the president also raised conflicted feelings in Duncan, but she said it ultimately didn’t change her decision about the former Trump campaign chairman."

“Every day when I drove, I had my Make America Great Again hat in the backseat,” said Duncan, who said she plans to vote for Trump again in 2020. “Just as a reminder.”

From a different article about it: "A political allegiance to the president also raised conflicted feelings in Duncan, but she said it ultimately didn’t change her decision about the former Trump campaign chairman."

“Every day when I drove, I had my Make America Great Again hat in the backseat,” said Duncan, who said she plans to vote for Trump again in 2020. “Just as a reminder.”

From a different article about it: "A political allegiance to the president also raised conflicted feelings in Duncan, but she said it ultimately didn’t change her decision about the former Trump campaign chairman."

“Every day when I drove, I had my Make America Great Again hat in the backseat,” said Duncan, who said she plans to vote for Trump again in 2020. “Just as a reminder.”

When you're going to be on a jury, should you need this kind of reminder? Doesn't seem like she was trying to be impartial.

From a different article about it: "A political allegiance to the president also raised conflicted feelings in Duncan, but she said it ultimately didn’t change her decision about the former Trump campaign chairman."

“Every day when I drove, I had my Make America Great Again hat in the backseat,” said Duncan, who said she plans to vote for Trump again in 2020. “Just as a reminder.”

A reminder of what, exactly?

A reminder to never be disloyal to the cult leader by actually questioning whether he is fit to be president.

Reading over Cohen's plea, I'm going to make the following prediction: Mueller is going to charge a bunch more people in conjunction with these campaign finance violations. I'm betting they'll be charged all in the same week, and probably simultaneously.

By my reading, Cohen's eight counts list two executives of what is presumed to be the Trump Organization ('the Company'), an editor of 'Corporation 1' (most likely AMI, possibly editor David Pecker), coordination with and direction from 'the Candidate' (Trump) and at least two executives within the [Trump] campaign. That's a lot of people and a potentially detailed paper trail.

Might take a few weeks while they corroborate everything Cohen shares with them (some of it new, some of it merely verified and given context from their raid on his office early this summer).

Reading over Cohen's plea, I'm going to make the following prediction: Mueller is going to charge a bunch more people in conjunction with these campaign finance violations. I'm betting they'll be charged all in the same week, and probably simultaneously.

By my reading, Cohen's eight counts list two executives of what is presumed to be the Trump Organization ('the Company'), an editor of 'Corporation 1' (most likely AMI, possibly editor David Pecker), coordination with and direction from 'the Candidate' (Trump) and at least two executives within the [Trump] campaign. That's a lot of people and a potentially detailed paper trail.

Might take a few weeks while they corroborate everything Cohen shares with them (some of it new, some of it merely verified and given context from their raid on his office early this summer).

Good prediction.

My husband was wondering if this combo of convictions/pleas would finally wake up the Trump loyalists. I thought absolutely not (in contrast, I actually think the worse/more any evidence of wrongdoing, the more they will rally to him), but I am hopeful that the scenario you describe will happen and absolute panic will hit the White House circle, causing a bunch of people to just bail out....the appearance of even more (which...stop to contemplate THAT) dysfunction in that place might drive higher turnout for the Dems in Nov.

goddamn do I want to see him implicated in all this too. If he was involved enough to compel a resignation that would make taking the house back even more critical, as Speaker is next in line of succession after VP. President Pelosi (assuming dems get the house and she's speaker) wouldn't be my first choice but I can think of worse alternatives.

I'm kinda getting tired of Trump saying racist stuff and everyone jumping to the conclusion that he's pandering to white nationalists. It assumes that he's some kind of political mastermind instead of a doddering old fool. Why can't he just be racist for racism's sake?

For better or worse, I suspect Pence is a boy scout. I think he's probably genuinely horrified at the things his administration is doing, but has just enough lust for power to overcome his moral objections.

I think Pence is probably the patsy, the one guy in the white house who is NOT happy to embrace criminal activity, the one everyone else avoids, or changes the subject when he enters the room.

Why is he still there? My guess is that his hardcore religious views have convinced him that worshiping this particular false idol is part of a larger plan. A plan to cover the country with his particular flavor of Christianity, like a smothering wet blanket on a hot day. You know the plans of the religious right, I don't need to spell them out for you. They are all about denying your freedoms and invading your personal liberties, but only because a 4000 year old book says so, not because Obama is a secret Kenyan muslim.

The great irony of Mike Pence is the great irony of the American evangelical movement, so long a promoter of "family values", teetering on the precipice of obsolescence, saved from eternal irrelevance by the rise of a serial philander con man without a spiritual bone in his body. They yoked their proverbial horse to this sinner/savior in the hopes of a miracle, and when Trump descended from the mountain top with his commandments to lie and cheat and steal, they swallowed hard and said "Yes, Sir!" Now they sit patiently, wallowing in their own self-aware hypocrisy, trying to eek out a few policy victories here and there in exchange for their souls. It was the only bargain they could make.

And Pence will fall hardest of all, I think. He's the sacrificial Christian, the Job asked to endure an onslaught of misery and suffering that would test even the most pious man. And he's nailing it! When Trump defends Nazis, Pence stepped up and assured the nation Trump has accepted Jesus into his heart. When Trump needs someone to criticize protesting NFL players, Pence gladly shouldered the burden and flew to a game just so that he could walk out. He has debased himself and his faith at every turn, and no one escapes that kind of filth without dirtying their insides. The Christian right loves a martyr, and I think they're happy Pence has volunteered.

In some ways the specter of President Pence is terrifying, because it would make the US a legitimate theocracy. He respects no law but the bible. On the other hand, he appears to be a principled and effective politician with a clearly articulated world view and a record of forcing his views into the public sphere, none of which is true for Trump. Whether the country would be better off with an effective administration implementing disastrous policies, or disastrous government failing to implement any policies at all, is a question I hope to leave unanswered.

He was picked as the running mate because he buttoned up the religious right vote which was squeemish (at first) with a trice-married adulteris, and because he was willing to stand on camera behind Trump and clap and smile at every proclamation. BUT - I don't think they involved him very much. To back up this theory, look at all the times Pence was sent out on the talk-show circuit only to have his message contradicted while he was on camera. He did it on why Comey was fired, he did it on gun legislation, he did it when Pence was assuring NATO allies the US was definitely not going to back out.

My husband was wondering if this combo of convictions/pleas would finally wake up the Trump loyalists. I thought absolutely not (in contrast, I actually think the worse/more any evidence of wrongdoing, the more they will rally to him), but I am hopeful that the scenario you describe will happen and absolute panic will hit the White House circle, causing a bunch of people to just bail out....the appearance of even more (which...stop to contemplate THAT) dysfunction in that place might drive higher turnout for the Dems in Nov.

Two ways of reading this - that this is the moment when Trump loyalists 'wake up' (the day when Trump fans leave him) or the moment when the dam breaks. I tend to think the latter is more likely, as everyone realizes with Cohen cooperating and Manafort facing life-or-cooperate their time cut deals and wash whatever stains they may have on their hands is now. That's the problem with strong-man loyalty vs principled loyalty. People no longer feel compelled to be loyal to strong men when they are no longer seen as being strong (whereas principled loyalists will jump ship at the first whiff of scandal or impropriety). Or of course this could be the day nothing changes for Trump supporters - they haven't left yet, they don't believe the evidence piling up and they don't particularly care about what he says.

Reading over Cohen's plea, I'm going to make the following prediction: Mueller is going to charge a bunch more people in conjunction with these campaign finance violations. I'm betting they'll be charged all in the same week, and probably simultaneously.

By my reading, Cohen's eight counts list two executives of what is presumed to be the Trump Organization ('the Company'), an editor of 'Corporation 1' (most likely AMI, possibly editor David Pecker), coordination with and direction from 'the Candidate' (Trump) and at least two executives within the [Trump] campaign. That's a lot of people and a potentially detailed paper trail.

Might take a few weeks while they corroborate everything Cohen shares with them (some of it new, some of it merely verified and given context from their raid on his office early this summer).

We may not see all of these. There may be sealed indictments in order to secure plea deals from some of them in advance of charges being known. Isn't that what happened with Papadapolus? I do think he will secure more convictions, though.

I'm kinda getting tired of Trump saying racist stuff and everyone jumping to the conclusion that he's pandering to white nationalists. It assumes that he's some kind of political mastermind instead of a doddering old fool. Why can't he just be racist for racism's sake?

In this case, I disagree with you. Because sorry, man, he is directing the SECRETARY OF STATE of the UNITED STATES to look into (a bullshit story about) large scale killing and land seizures in SOUTH AFRICA of white farmers by black people.

On the day that Manafort was convicted and Cohen pleaded guilty.

Sorry, this isn't just run of the mill dog whistle racism. This action is completely ridiculous and meaningless except as a signal to the white supremacist part of his base that believes white people and "white society" are under threat from black people.

I'm kinda getting tired of Trump saying racist stuff and everyone jumping to the conclusion that he's pandering to white nationalists. It assumes that he's some kind of political mastermind instead of a doddering old fool. Why can't he just be racist for racism's sake?

In this case, I disagree with you. Because sorry, man, he is directing the SECRETARY OF STATE of the UNITED STATES to look into (a bullshit story about) large scale killing and land seizures in SOUTH AFRICA of white farmers by black people.

On the day that Manafort was convicted and Cohen pleaded guilty.

Sorry, this isn't just run of the mill dog whistle racism. This action is completely ridiculous and meaningless except as a signal to the white supremacist part of his base that believes white people and "white society" are under threat from black people.

I'm he would say there were "very good people" on both sides of apartheid implementation.

For better or worse, I suspect Pence is a boy scout. I think he's probably genuinely horrified at the things his administration is doing, but has just enough lust for power to overcome his moral objections. ...

A number of stories detail that Manafort pushed Trump to choose Pence. Most of those stories suggest that it was an attempt to unite different factions of the party (Pence is evangelical and had loosely endorsed Cruz). Maybe that's it, but I think the media and investigators have to take a deep dive on anything involving Manafort, because we know from his own emails and other sources that he (Manafort) appeared to be using his position within the campaign and his influence after "leaving" the campaign to settle some of his obligations to Ukrainian and Russian oligarchs.

So there is an obvious unanswered question about whether Manafort chose Pence for the straightforward reasons most have settled upon, or if this was actually an ask from his former associates and employers.

Not that I wish it wasn't so, but it seems more likely Pence was chosen to unite the evangelical voters to Trump, a "marriage of convenience". Usually, VPs don't do much other than try to create a winning ticket at election time, and Trump was weak on both being a true Christian and on moral values, so this was a way to unite that group. Time will tell.

I'm kinda getting tired of Trump saying racist stuff and everyone jumping to the conclusion that he's pandering to white nationalists. It assumes that he's some kind of political mastermind instead of a doddering old fool. Why can't he just be racist for racism's sake?

In this case, I disagree with you. Because sorry, man, he is directing the SECRETARY OF STATE of the UNITED STATES to look into (a bullshit story about) large scale killing and land seizures in SOUTH AFRICA of white farmers by black people.

On the day that Manafort was convicted and Cohen pleaded guilty.

Sorry, this isn't just run of the mill dog whistle racism. This action is completely ridiculous and meaningless except as a signal to the white supremacist part of his base that believes white people and "white society" are under threat from black people.

I just think that the likelihood that Donald Trump believes the things he says is higher than people give him credit for. He was doing racist stuff on a pretty regular basis long before being elected President, and has been caught doing racist stuff many times when no white nationalists would have noticed.

I'm kinda getting tired of Trump saying racist stuff and everyone jumping to the conclusion that he's pandering to white nationalists. It assumes that he's some kind of political mastermind instead of a doddering old fool. Why can't he just be racist for racism's sake?

In this case, I disagree with you. Because sorry, man, he is directing the SECRETARY OF STATE of the UNITED STATES to look into (a bullshit story about) large scale killing and land seizures in SOUTH AFRICA of white farmers by black people.

On the day that Manafort was convicted and Cohen pleaded guilty.

Sorry, this isn't just run of the mill dog whistle racism. This action is completely ridiculous and meaningless except as a signal to the white supremacist part of his base that believes white people and "white society" are under threat from black people.

I just think that the likelihood that Donald Trump believes the things he says is higher than people give him credit for. He was doing racist stuff on a pretty regular basis long before being elected President, and has been caught doing racist stuff many times when no white nationalists would have noticed.

Of course he does. I don't see that as being in question at all. Trump believing and doing racist stuff is on the order of "water is wet" in terms of shock value. This, however, is another order of magnitude. And it certainly WILL attract the attention of white nationalists. That is what it is designed for.